YouFound_Lxam

Fantastic debate from both sides.

Despite my opinion, I am going to be completely non-biased in this vote.
The title and description of the debate hovered over the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was morally superior to the Prophet Muhammed.
Pro uses the Qur'an, Hadiths, and Tafsir as all of his sources, so it is safe to assume that we are dealing with the Jesus described in the Qur'an, and not the Biblical description of him.

Our opponents argued with 3 main points:
Was Jesus morally superior in his actions than Muhammed was?
Was Muhammed by definition a pedophile?
The Credibility of the Hadiths.

1. Who provided the more convincing argument? Tie
The argument kind of went into a different direction, and if this was a debate about Muhammed being a pedophile, I would give the vote to Con, because Pro made a mistake in not defining what morally superior means to the argument. Assuming that we are talking about the Qur'ans definition of Muhammed, and the Qur'ans definition of Jesus, it is safe to assume that we should be basing moral superiority's definition off the Qur'an. Con takes the point because according to the Qur'an, it is not immoral to have sexual relations with minors, which refutes Pro's main critique of Muhammed by definition. Whether or not it is actually immoral to have sexual relations with children is beside the point in this debate, because Pro is going based off of the Qur'ans definitions of things. Now Pro doesn't say directly that he is going based off of the moral definitions of the Qur'an, but however he does not provide one at all. So Con is forced to use the language "according to the Qur'an" to make up for this.

However, this is not what the debate was about. The debate was about whether Jesus of Nazareth was morally superior to the Prophet Muhammed. Pro claims that because Jesus didn't have sex with kids, and treated them a different way, then that makes him morally superior. This again doesn't hold much ground since the definition of morally superior when it comes to having sex with kids is permissible according to the Qur'an, so this argument falls short. However Pro also claimed that Jesus was morally superior, because Jesus didn't die, and went up to heaven with Allah, but Muhammed died as a man, and it is not said whether or not Muhammed went to heaven. This by itself is not a lot to go off on, because the Qur'an (according to the debate) doesn't explicitly state if Muhammed went to heaven or not. That would be the deciding factor, but unfortunately there is little to go off of.
Because of this, I am going to have to put this criterion, as a tie.

2. Which participant provided more reliable sources? Pro
I think it is safe to say that Pro wins this critique because he provided more sources from the Hadiths and the Qur'an than Con did. Con mostly just refuted, the Hadiths, and brought up a couple definitions of words. Overall, though, Pro wins this criterion.

3. Which participant's arguments had significantly better legibility? Tie
I think both participants arguments were equally legible. I had no hard time understanding either argument.

4. Which participant had significantly better conduct? Tie
Again, both parties were very respectful and kind to one another, and I would have to put this criterion as a tie as well.

Hopefully you both agree this vote was unbiased and fair.
Thank you both for being involved in a great debate.

FF............

FF. I need to add more characters so...........

Arguments:
Pro started off with a convincing argument, stating that Homosexuality doesn't harm people in a physical sense, and occurs naturally. They go on to provide sources, and a firm argument for that case.
What really got me though, was when Con made the argument that homosexuality is not a natural occurrence, given that the only place it shows up in, is humans. Then Con also goes on to say, that homosexuality causes more harm than good, because of the suicide and depression rates. Con does not provide any statistics or evidence for this, but Pro does rebuttal this statement so I will count it in my vote.

This is where the argument gets interesting. Pro states that the cause in violence is due to others being aggressive and demeaning to homosexuals, and that it isn't the homosexual's fault, but what Pro does not realize is that they are attacking their previous argument, in saying that homosexuality doesn't harm people. Then Con rebuttals in saying that if there were no homosexuals, then the violence wouldn't exist, which is true. But dangerous doesn't entirely constitute as wrong all the time, so this was a hard vote for me.

So, all in all, what got me to vote for Con, was that Con proved that.
A. Homosexuality is not a natural occurrence, yet a human made one.
B. Homosexuality causes its own danger.
So, danger, plus unnatural usually = wrong.

Sources:
Goes to Pro, because Con provided 0 sources.

This debate kind of went off topic from proving a Gods existence, to talking about the Quran, which has nothing to do with just simply proving "a" God, so I will not be using any part of the argument, where a specific religion, or the Quran, was brought up for proof, or part of the argument.

Pro uses 3 main arguments to prove the existence of God. The debate title infers that Pro is trying to prove the existence of God, and not give reasons for why he "might" exist. Pro argues that 1. The Universe has to have a creator or something that created it. 2. Con argues that the universe is too complex for there not to be a God. 3. Disproves illogical theory's that say otherwise.

Con rebuttals these arguments by saying they are evidence of the possibility of a God, but not definitive proof, which to I would agree with Con on. Pro never provides any evidence that is definitive proof of God, because if he did, he would be on the headlines of everywhere.
But to give Pro some credit, Con never states what exactly he is arguing. If he was arguing that a God most definitely doesn't exist (which would be the opposite of Pros argument), then he would be wrong also, given there is a grey area, where Con argues is the existence of a God.

But Pro never points this out, therefore Con is the one that disproved Pro, giving Con the point.
Neither provided a lot of evidence.
Both had adequate spelling and grammar.
Both had good conduct.

And I am a religious man as well, but I am also non-biased when it comes to voting, so I had to give the win to Con here, because Pros argument did not live up to what he claimed.

As Con pointed out, Pro strayed away from the topic at hand from an economic standpoint, to describing the country of North Korea.

Secondly, Con made a more convincing argument, especially in his first argument, where he said:

This is a country we know barely anything about, what we do know is Covid made it brutally incapable of its self-reliance aim and hurt its GDP too even if that's overall a secret in terms of its precise value. How about business and entrepreneurship in NK? Actually, this isn't as bad as one may assume. The problem is they have no Internet, for either research or international trade. On top of that, everything they produce and research is owned completely by the government, reducing any self-motivational incentive to try other than to feed the ego and wellbeing of Kim Jong-Un. See, when it comes to economic freedom (which all businesspeople would highly value) North Korea is practically as bad as it can possibly get.

And finally, the reason Con had the better argument, was because most of Con's points were based in the facts he provided and were factual. A lot of Pros arguments were very opinionated.

Because Con actually debated lol.